Skip to main content

tv   The Communicators Sen. John Thune Rep. Bob Latta  CSPAN  March 4, 2019 1:46pm-2:18pm EST

1:46 pm
it's putting the right policies in place and having the leadership to recognize the value and benefits and economic dividends that come with 5g development. >> but given the ruralness of south dakota, has broadband been built out? >> not everywhere. i always tell people we have 4g or lte technology today but in some places in south dakota, we have 3g. in some places in south dakota, nothing. it's a very geographically vast state but there are a number of programs and resources that have been made available to some of the rural cooperatives, telecom companies, independent telecom companies that serve smaller xun communities in south dakota, that they have been able to access, that has enabled them to make investment. you would be surprised as you go across south dakota how many places you have access to good internet service. now, perhaps not the quality of service that they have in larger more populated areas but that's one of the things we are trying
1:47 pm
to cure. i think a lot of that comes with figuring out how you can leverage some of those resources that are available at the federal level, having the mindset and leadership and policy framework, if you will, in place that encourages people to make those investments. >> do you have any leftover remnants of the gateway corporation in south dakota that can benefit you? >> not a lot. gateway was a huge thing as you know a couple decades ago. they had a significant footprint in our state. lot of jobs there. not so much anymore. but thaas that world has evolve the needs are different, the demands are different, but i think if you want to be a leader in that space, you definitely have to have an eye toward the future and what that future's going to look like. if you look at 5g, it's a future that's very connected where more people have access, where you
1:48 pm
can connect more devices, where speeds are 100 times faster than they are today. i think we get people who sort of capture that and realize just what a difference that can make in people's lives and what a magnet it can be for jobs and economic opportunity and economic activity throughout our communities in south dakota. i give a lot of our leaders both back then and now credit for looking into that future and seeing what they can make of it. >> what about 5g in health care in a rural state? >> well, again, it's something that 5g has enormous potential to benefit the delivery of health care in rural areas. we have a -- we have three major systems in south dakota that have, you know, a footprint all across our state in addition to north dakota, minnesota and iowa, other states in our neighborhood, that are really using those services today. but if you -- if you move from 4g lte to 5g, you are talking
1:49 pm
about lower end-to-end latency and the ability to do procedures and operations via that medium so i think whether you are a surgeon or somebody who is treating a trauma patient in a remote area of south dakota, if you get 5g working in a way that enables that type of communication to occur, i think you will be able to do great things. it has tremendous potential for health care delivery, especially in rural states where you've got big geography you have to cover. >> did you time out as commerce chair and get your choice of subcommittee? >> what happened was i decided to seek the majority whip position and our rules don't allow you to be the leader or the whip and to chair a major committee. i had two years left before i timed out on the committee but i chose to move over and to take the whip job, but i still am
1:50 pm
able to chair a subcommittee we i will chair the telecom subcommittee and work with chairman wicker, now chairman of the commerce committee, on these issues. i'm still very much interested in 5g, very much interested in spectrum availability, very much interested in autonomous vehicles and a lot of the things we started work on, very much interested in privacy which i think has the potential to be a big bipartisan accomplishment of this congress. i think both sides, the house and the senate and republicans and democrats realize we've got to have some sort of national data privacy standard or law that will protect people's personal information. >> do you see something in the 116th on privacy and how do you envision it? >> i think the big issues in that debate are going to be preemption. there are a lot of states that are doing their own thing. california has a law that goes into effect january 1 of 2020 which has a lot of people worried and there are a lot of other states that are starting to move in that space. if you want to avoid having to
1:51 pm
comply with 50 different standards in 50 different states, it's probably important for congress to be heard from on this. you know, one of the other issues i think in addition to the preemption issue will be who has rule-making authority, who has enforcement authority and is it the fcc, is it the state attorneys general, you know, there's a lot of discussion around that issue. but i think if you can -- they are kind of thorny issues, they're not easy, but if you can navigate that and put together a package that's balanced, that's something we can legislate on. frankly, we need to. i think it's an issue the american people care deeply about based on some of the big breaches we have seen in the past few years. i don't know where the house comes from on this now. speaker pelosi obviously represents california 48 out of the 233 democrats in the house are from california. california has its own law and they are going to want to keep their law. but i think this is the kind of example where you really do need a national standard, because
1:52 pm
otherwise, you will have companies in the tech world that have to comply with california, new york and texas and florida and south dakota, who knows, and i think it's important that we have some sort of national standard there. >> senator thune, at the same time, a lot of the democrats seem to be, i don't want to use the word angry but upset with some of the tech companies, and the loss of privacy. >> yeah. i think that presents an opportunity. because i think the democrats who traditionally have been perhaps more closely allied with silicon valley and some of the tech companies are as outraged about some of these breaches as republicans are, and i think it presents an opportunity to find a path forward, bipartisan path forward, that could lead to a major legislative accomplishment and solve a problem that i think the american people care deeply about and want to see congress act on. in the absence of that, you will see states stepping in and doing their own thing. i think the better solution long-term is for congress to be heard from on a core issue like
1:53 pm
this. >> you also mentioned you will be looking at autonomous vehicles. >> yes. >> have you ridden in one and is there any test projects out in south dakota? >> south dakota would be a great place to test this out because you got a lot of wide-open space. i have ridden in them. it is remarkable technology. it's very unnerving to be driving out here on 395 and allow the autonomous feature to kick in and to be sitting there and seeing the car driving itself, speeding up, slowing down, changing lanes. but that's where the technology is moving. the reason to do it is because we have 37,000 fatalities on america's highways every year, 94% of which are human error. if you can take some of that human error out of the equation, we can save a lot of lives. so i'm excited about it. i think we need a regulatory framework here to kind of put some guardrails around the technology so that it develops in a safe way, and i really think again, it's another issue that i think congress needs to be heard from on.
1:54 pm
but the technology is moving forward and we either better keep up with it or we are going to be left behind. >> the president recently signed an executive order encouraging artificial intelligence, a push toward that in all federal agencies. >> i think there's some really neat new technologies, a.i. is one of them, and you know, it has the potential again to sort of transform the way we live in a way that 5g will, too. you look at the opportunity to advance in so many areas, in artificial intelligence like everything else, it's one of those things that it's got to be, got to move forward in sort of a steady way. i think people over time will adapt to, acclimate to, get more comfortable with some of those technologies, but the fact that the administration recognizes this is where we're headed is a good thing, and the use of artificial intelligence in decision making and creating more data and that sort of thing i think is going to be a good thing for all of us.
1:55 pm
>> cybersecurity keep you awake at night? >> it does. it's a real concern, and you know, these companies like huawei and zte that are trying to get their chips into our 5g development and some of our investment is really concerning because i think there are some of these foreign countries and governments that have malign designs on this country and it presents a national security risk. i don't think there's any way around that and i think it's something we have to be wary of. i think it's something that at the congressional level, the white house, federal agencies, all need to be working together on, along with the private sector which in many cases has some of the best ideas about how to prevent those types of attacks from occurring in the future and to put strategies in place to prevent them. but yeah, it's a very real threat. i think from a national security standpoint, too, i remember when i was a member of the senate armed services committee, this was kind of the new form of
1:56 pm
warfare and there are lots of questions about what are the rules of engagement, what's the proportionate response and if somebody tries to attack us and you've got these constant daily sort of cyberattacks on our infrastructure, how do we respond to that, and those are questions that i think our national security community is grappling with and they need to be, because these threats are very real and the more information that's out there, the more data that's out there, the more people know about us and particularly some of our important national security secrets, the more concerning it is. >> final question. over the years, sometimes it seemed that congress is behind technology by a couple of years. is that still the case? >> i think so. i mean, it's hard to keep up. you have people out there that are smart and you know, even if you're trying to defeat the bad guys, you know, we have one
1:57 pm
issue that our committee dealt with that i'm interested in, too, and i actually have a bill this year with ed markey from massachusetts, it has to do with robo calls and all the robo calls that we get. it seems like every time you come up with, you know, a strategy or a solution that can defeat the current way the bad actors come up with another way around it because technology is constantly changing and people are looking for new ways to defeat us in trying to stop it. i just think government has to do what it can to anticipate what's going to happen next. we are not always going to be right but we need to be thinking, you know, like they do and that's why i think the government has hired more and more of some of these young people who understand and are very adept at cracking and breaking down some of the code and whatnot used by the bad guys. >> john thune, majority whip in the u.s. senate, a republican from south dakota, chair of the
1:58 pm
communications technology innovation and internet subcommittee. thank you for your time on the communicators. >> thanks, peter. always good to be with you. >> well, representative bob latta of the energy and commerce committee. last time we talked to you, you were in the majority. what happened and how is that going to make a difference? >> well, we want to get back to the majority. we lost those 18 seats and want to make sure we get ourselves back. but i think there's a lot of issues that we can work with the democrats on in the energy and commerce committee and so i think we can work forward together on a lot of pieces of legislation. >> what is one of those issues? >> rural broadband. it's really important for our part of the country and across the country, because i have parts of my district in northwest central ohio that folks don't have access to broadband so it would affect everyone from kids going to school, it affects farmers, not being able to utilize the newest technology.
1:59 pm
i sponsored the precision agriculture legislation that went into [ inaudible ]. we want to make sure broadband is out there for all americans and we want to make sure what we just heard from the chairman recent recently, people out there are going to be able to access higher speed out there. that's what you have to have. areas in my district where people might want to have a business, they can't because if you're not connected today, you're not in business. that's one of the areas off the bat that i think we can work together. i served as one of the co-chairs on the rural broadband caucus. we want to make sure it gets out there across the country. we want everyone to be able to have it as soon as possible. >> northeast ohio is part of your district. >> northwest. >> northwest ohio. >> we looked at the northwest section, it's important because again, i represent -- it's a
2:00 pm
very interesting thing. i represent the largest [ inaudible ] producing district in the state of ohio and have 2,000 manufacturing jobs. all those things are tying together today. what congress is doing, peter welch and i co-chaired a working group on the internet of things. we have to have the structure out there to make sure we can bring it to people across the country when we talk about broadband. ... that we need to get building. and if so, from downtown toledo to rural areas of ohio and some areas have greater access and others have not. >> during the net neutrality debate did you hear from constituents on that issue?
2:01 pm
>> there is a lot of confusion over what net neutrality is. we've interviewed -- introduced legislation and i'm the republican leader on the delegation's subcommittee on energy and what i did was reintroduced the democrat chairman's bill several congresses ago but we wanted to make sure that we don't have the organization and that folks are able to make sure we don't have these issues but a lot of people don't understand where the democrats want to go in the former fcc chairman is to take us back to title to which is taking us back to 1930 law which is mark bell and we pass that. we don't want more government regulations out there that stifle. even when they say there will be forbearance out there but yeah, that may be one fcc but what
2:02 pm
happens on the road? working together with the democrats to sale of past net neutrality education and get it in legislation so you don't have constant question will this be out there in the future. >> i saw the letter you and others sent to the democratic chairman on d&c and is that going to be something that will be looked at in congress? >> again, former chairwoman on the energy and commerce his legislation was taken within the fcc to make sure you get thing in legislation. kathy morris rogers bill was comes to the state of washington with from their legislator on net neutrality signed into law to a democratic legislator and by a democratic governor. when you look at it you don't see anything about title two.
2:03 pm
we want to make sure that is not in there because that's a problem where you have a stifling government out there we want to make sure innovators -. >> what have you heard? >> that's in congress but we've extended the invitation to sit down and work on it. >> a lot of talk on the privacy and states are working on this individually, like on net neutrality. is this something you see in our future? >> at that time i chaired the digital cover consumer and we had multiple meetings one of the big issues out there and you are absolutely right, we can have states going out and doing their own thing.
2:04 pm
you can have 50 states coming up with us. we have to have a national standard. everyone out there understand that. california as an acting legislation the most people we don't want that legislation to be what we will be living with. we have to to the end of the year to get this thing done in subcommittee today we have privacy hearing already. we are people from around to testify but we want to make sure american, consumers out there are protected and have a standard out there that everyone knows what it is and sounds like a patchwork trying to figure out is this correct or is that correct and you can do this or can do this but to have a national standard out there. we need all of the groups to come together and that's one of the things that we tell folks. we need them at the table and a lot of times you will not get one 100% but we need people to come together and sit down and say this is where we will go because we've got to have a standard out there nationally and not a patchwork of
2:05 pm
cross-country. >> for removing the direction of europe? >> probably with the gdp are there's problems first of all that is europe. we have the first amendment but that's one thing we look at. but at the same time they put things in their testimony i asked one of the witnesses that what happens if you criminals out there, bad actors and in europe they can disappear. folks, we just can't do that. when you look with the gdp are they thought will have a situation where will be able to say smaller companies, smaller individuals but it's the reverse. the big guys are out there because they can fight much easier until it's hurting the smaller folks across europe. in the united states we want to
2:06 pm
make sure everybody can keep not just the big guys. >> one of the other issues that this area has been talked about antitrust with these big guys the facebook's et cetera. what are your views on that? >> again, when you look at what's happening with the gdp are and where they're going. that's european law and how they come up but we want to establish our privacy that will fit what we do in the united states and how we operate. they will find out what they've done in europe that they've gone too far where you can't find the bad guys or bad actors out there so how do you catch them and say to law enforcement, we can't help you. >> congressman, it's been several months since mark zuckerberg testified on capital what are your views on facebook
2:07 pm
in general, and that testimony and will he be that? >> is important that he spent five hours in committee that day and in our committee jurisdiction we had you heard from a lot of different big companies out there. i think the thing we have out there is we've got to have transparency and people understand what they are doing. a lot of folks for the great majority don't understand how something might work and where your information is going and how that affects your privacy. after the testimony heard big names say i'm off. they say i'm getting off. i think the thing want to do other is people know what the rules of the road are and there can be protected and if they don't want that they can get out. but it's important that as we go forward the public should be informed and protected.
2:08 pm
>> two final areas. number one, mergers, sprint t-mobile told the board and i don't know if congress is a role but do you have an opinion? >> when we recently had that hearing on the merger i pointed out and i believe walden ranking on the full committee also pointed out we don't have a say in this. this points back to the regulators. the regulators have to make that decision as to what is the best for the consumer and that is what you have to look at. again, without my committee was called the digital commerce and protection and now it's consumer protection and commerce. there's kind of a trend here that we are looking at what we can do to make sure the consumer is protected and they know what is going on.
2:09 pm
again, and never has left the court of the regulator but we have to see where they go from there. >> but that said, what are your views about the sprint t-mobile? >> it's important that look, this could be a benefit to the consumer. as the regulator go forward they will as they move forward say okay, is this something that will be a benefit and if so, go forward with it. if they turn around and say this is a bad idea then you know where their role on this is. >> future of autonomous cars. >> i worked on that and we had great cooperation and i chaired the subcommittee last time and not only that but i think we had wonderful cooperation on both sides of the isle. staff told me over 300 meetings that we did on autonomous self driving vehicles in the last congress. we were able to do -- we looked
2:10 pm
at -- for small we looked where trend word deaths are going up and 37000 traffic accidents in this country and trend is not going in the other direction. people are driving. when you look at one make sure safety comes first and safety always. several security and privacy and the other thing is that technology is developing new lysates we want to have it not being imported from china or around the world but we want to do here in the united states. at the same time look at the benefits not preventing accidents but also folks out there that are visually impaired like my mother. she had a condition and gave up her driver's license. she was dependent on family member to get her places and i would hope folks out but have a disability. also, when you look at the senior citizens and say it's
2:11 pm
time for me to give up my license and they might not have mobile access from a cab to a bus or something like that in their community but give them that benefit to remain mobile. we are very close to the end and a bill passed out 54-nothing and passed on the floor by a voice vote something this technical capacity of the house and a voice vote, went to the senate and worked with them. up to the 12th hour of the last congress but could not get it over the line with them. >> what were the concerns? >> multiple things multiple individuals and the senate operates differently than the house. we only need a vote to pass something in overall for majority so i want to start working on this because it's important for the community out there for all individuals, safety, the disabled, senior citizens and making sure the
2:12 pm
technology here is built here in the arteries. you want to get work on it and get back over to the senate and work with our colleagues to get this thing pass. it will be a great boost or boom out there, pardon me, for safety and for all reasons i mentioned that it will help in the driving community. >> republican of ohio and member of the energy commerce committ committee. ranking member on the tech subcommittee. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television company and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme
2:13 pm
court and public policy events in washington dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> on this monday afternoon, look at the us capitol for the senate will be gaveling in it shortly. lawmakers will begin their day at 3:00 p.m. eastern with more work on the allison jones russia judicial nomination. procedural vote on that is set for 5:30 eastern today. watch the senate live here at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. more like programming coming up with the russian ambassador to the us. he is expected to talk about the state of relations between russia and the united states here in washington. live coverage starts at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. also today, the pakistani ambassador to the us talk about relations between the two countries from the us institute of peace here in washington, live coverage starts at
2:14 pm
3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. you can also watch online at c-span .org and listen the free c-span radio app. >> joining us taking vote issues in congress and the white house. he reports for the philadelphia inquirer and serves as a national political reporter and alina who was with axis, white house reporter for that publication. thank you for joining us both this week. the news as of yesterday and alina, will start with you when it comes to the house judiciary committees spinning a probe into the presidents -- that was happening and how the white house is reacting. >> i think with democrats lot of people are putting all of their eggs in robert fuller's basket hoping that when his report was finally released that would put all the pressure on the trump administration but with reports that that is winding down the democrats taking it upon themselves to release a flurry of investigations and house intelligence committee we saw michael cohen, for house intelligence 20, for the house oversight committee and the
2:15 pm
senate committee and shown that they will be several different areas looking at the president's finances and money-laundering with the trump organization and they are hitting him from all different directions and we can expect the next few months is to continue very thoroughly. >> before we want we show you a little bit of what jared nadler, chairs term and here's what he had to say on the show yesterday regarding investigation. here is gerald nadler. >> this invitation goes far beyond collusion. we've seen all the democratic norms we depend on for democratic government attacked by the demonstration. the scene attacks on the freedom of press called the enemy of the people and attacks on the department of justice and fbi in attacks on judges. all of these are corrosive to liberty and the proper functioning of government in our constitutional system. all this has to be looked at and the facts laid out for the many people. >> to think the president is
2:16 pm
obstructing justice? >> yes, i do. it's clear that he is obstructing justice. 1100 times reserved to the mueller invitation as a witchhunt and tried to protec protect -- fired james comey in order to stop the russian thing as he told nbc news. he dangled -- he's intimidated witnesses in public. >> if that is the case the decision not to pursue impeachment right now political? if you believe he obstructed justice? >> no, we have to do the investigations and get all this. we do not now have the evidence all sorted out to do and impeachment. before you impeach somebody you have to persuade the mac in public that it ought to happen. have to persuade enough of the opposition party voters, trump
2:17 pm
voters, that you're not just trying to -- >> high bar. >> yes, you're not just trying to steal the last election or reverse the lex election. we may not get there. but what we have to do is protect the rule of law. >> jonathan, a lot there like a shotgun approach this. what can we send her on how we get this information they're looking for? >> they go in different directions off the michael cohen testimony. i read a quote in "the washington post", i think, they called it setting a ten course meal where they raised his children and with a known about his business dealings and issues he raised about the key financial officers in the trump organization so he laid out a bunch of names that now democrats are likely going to want to bring in as well to hear what they know and the idea you have the chairman of the jerry committee partly saying president obstructed justice that's a significant conclusion for him to reach at that level so


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on